Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

On July 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal from the Order of a bankruptcy judge in Sirius Concrete Inc. (Re), 2022 ONCA 524 (Sirius), which ruled that certain funds paid by a trade creditor formed part of the bankrupt’s estate. The issue on appeal was whether a constructive trust should be imposed over certain funds due to a claim of unjust enrichment arising from alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by the bankrupt on the eve of its bankruptcy filing.

The recent decision inErnst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) analyzed the criteria for establishing voidable transfers at undervalue under section 96 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA), with a particular focus on the application of “corporate attribution” in the context of insolvency.

As Canada prepares to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, factors such as the elimination of government pandemic support and rising interest rates may significantly affect lenders’ decisions in 2022. Many expect that withdrawal of government funding will create a wave of insolvency filings in Canada. Although there remains significant uncertainty, secured lenders may be comforted by recent court decisions across Canada that have affirmed lenders’ rights and remedies in cases of default. This article summarizes these recent decisions and offers implications for lenders going forward.

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

On June 17, 2021, the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) dismissed two companion appeals in the receivership proceedings of Accel Canada Holdings Limited (Holdings) and Accel Energy Canada Limited (Energy and together with Holdings, Accel).

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity